Reading Exercise 4

Directions:

Read the following selection from Of the Liberty of Thought and Discussion, by John Stuart Mill. Then answer the questions below.

The time, it is hoped, is gone by, when any defence would be necessary of the ‘liberty of the press’ as one of the securities against corrupt and tyrannical government.  No argument, we may suppose, can now be needed against permitting a legislature or an executive, not identified in interest with the people, to prescribe opinions to them, and determine what doctrines or what arguments they shall be allowed to hear.  This aspect of the question besides, has been so triumphantly enforced by preceding writers, that it need not be specifically insisted on in this place.  Though the law of England, on the subject of the press, is as servile to this day as it was in the time of the Tudors, there is little danger of its actually being put in force against political discussion, except during some temporary panic, when fear of insurrection drives ministers and judges from their propriety; and, speaking generally, it is not, in constitutional countries, to be apprehended, that the government whether completely responsible to the people or not, will often attempt to control the expression of opinion, except when in doing so it makes itself the organ of the general intolerance of the public.  Let us suppose, therefore, that the government is entirely at one with the people, and never thinks of exerting any power of coercion unless in agreement with what it conceives to be their voice.  But I deny the right of the people to exercise such coercion, either by themselves or by their government.  The power itself is illegitimate. The best government has no more title to it than the worst.  It is as noxious, or more noxious, when exerted in accordance with public opinion, than when in opposition to it.  If all mankind, minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.  Were an opinion a personal possession of no value except to the owner; if to be obstructed in the enjoyment of it were simply a private injury, it would make some difference whether the injury was inflicted only on a few persons or on many.  But the peculiar evil of silencing an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it.  If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth; if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error.

        It is necessary to consider separately these two hypotheses, each of which has a distinct branch of the argument corresponding to it.  We can never be sure that the opinion we are endeavoring to stifle is a false opinion;  and if we were sure, stifling it would be an evil still.

-- John Stuart Mill, Of the Liberty of Thought and Discussion

Questions:

Mill, like Milton, is making an argument.  When you read an argument, you need to identify the logic on which that argument stands (or falls).  One of the elements that can assist you in this area is to identify the transitional phrases.  Identify the function of the transitions identified below:

1. "No argument, we may suppose, can now be needed against permitting a legislature or an executive, not identified in interest with the people, to prescribe opinions to them, and determine what doctrines or what arguments they shall be allowed to hear." 

   In this sentence the phrase “we may suppose”  indicates
   A.   A situation contrary to fact
   B.   An assumption that the audience will not question the statement
   C.   A qualification

2. “But I deny the right of the people to exercise such coercion, either by themselves or by their government.”

    In this sentence the word “but” establishes:
   A.   A causal relationship
   B.   An intensification of the idea stated previously
   C.   An exception or contrast

3. “If all mankind, minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.”

    In this sentence, the word “if” establishes:
   A.   A condition
   B.   An example
   C.   An additional point